The State and the Church: Inviolably separate?
IT has often been stated that the Philippine Constitution has built an inviolable wall of separation between the Church and the State, so as to ensure that religion and politics do not mix and impede upon each other. Often it has defended this position by saying that Christ Himself has exhorted to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”I would like to cite an article by Atty. Ma. Conception S. Noche, entitled “The Church and the State: Building Bridges, Not Walls,” which was published in the July 2011 issue of the ALFI (Alliance for the Family Foundation) News. She questioned the “wall” metaphor, as to whether it was really impregnable, and whether there is a strict separation in each and all respects.
She establishes the notion that the Church and the State, as they are, are distinct societies with different purposes for being—one, for the spiritual ends of man, the other, for the earthly and material well-being of man. Each serves different needs for the same human being who is a member of both societies at the same time. Both, however, aim at achieving the common good of the human community.
Further, she notes that those who believe in strict separation are hard put to explain why there are prayers in court and the legislatures, oaths that end “so help me God,” legal holidays to observe religious practices, etc., as well as other constitutional arrangements regarding Church and State relations.
To point out, the Philippine Constitution in its preamble implored “the aid of the Almighty God.” It accepts the principle of the “free exercise of religion” which means the freedom to believe and the freedom to act based on one’s belief. The Constitution is emphatic in guaranteeing religious liberty which assures that no person or religious organization would be molested, coerced, penalized or discriminated against on account of religious belief. It follows that religious profession and worship are forever allowed, and therefore no law shall be passed that will diminish or destroy religious freedom.
Concluding from Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate, she states that religion is an integral part of a person, and is not concerned solely with the future life, but with the here and now as well, with the ordinary day to day struggles that citizens, including their leaders, contend with every day. And since it is an integral part of the person, civil society should recognize religion as a constituent element of the common good for which it is responsible.
However independent Church and State are from each other, she notes, there are necessary connections that exist between them. Distinction and independence should not cause government to be hostile to religion, and vice versa. Coordination and cooperation is possible, and in the spirit of goodwill, the State and the Church can work together to provide an environment that will foster and promote to the fullest the integral development of each person. The task of achieving the common good, which is a shared objective of both Church and State, would surely “benefit from a friendly, benevolent and wholesome mutual cooperation between them.”
She concludes that “walls divide, foster enmity and stunt growth and development. The Church is involved in the politics that deals with authentic human development focused on the citizen’s very person, his human dignity, his material and spiritual needs, and rights that must be tended to and protected.”
Moreover, “the State has as its sacred duty the protection and promotion of the basic and inviolable rights of its citizens, notably the right to life and religious freedom.” And so she enjoins that the Church and State should endeavour to “build bridges—not walls—bridges that will bring the citizens-faithful beyond the limited and the ephemeral.”
At this point, I must emphatically resist the legislative proposal for a misnomered reproductive-health bill. Indeed, this bill has caused so much distress and division among our people. The many years that its proponents have so far unsuccesfully endeavoured to have this bill passed gives us a telling truth that the Filipino people, while not all of them have fully understood its total implications, is nonetheless averse to a State policy that intrudes on their religious convictions. It is almost tantamount to a State mandating a “religion” that abhors man’s innate dignity, and would immolate him on a mistaken altar of economic prosperity alone. As Attorney Noche emphasizes, let us build bridges rather than put up walls.
